scarey

McNutt was a top 50 prospect according to BA. The Marlins prospects didn't crack the top 100. They were close to that, the issue I had was with the combined remark...never did I say McNutt wasn't more valuable than either one. Even if they were number 101 and 102, the number 48 prospect in all of baseball is more valuable than both combined. That may be just my own personal opinion, but I have a feeling you share that opinion as well. There's something to be said about the fact that McNutt struggled this year, but I think most are able to overlook the up and down season due to the fact that he struggled with injuries. I know I am, and I know most major publications agree with me.

I'm almost happier they got Hammons rather than Harris. Almost. When he arrives next year, Purdue is going to be one of the tallest teams in the Big Ten. I can't remember ever thinking that.

Get benched for somebody that is worse at his job?

Off the top of my head I'd say they were above average at 3B, SS, C, and 2-3 SP spots (Garza for sure and maybe Dempster and Z). Add Wilson and Pujols/Fielder to that (if you can obviously) and hopefully a 3B platoon can stay above average (shouldn't be hard given what we have in-house) and this team can be above average at most of its positions. Then add in that the Cards and Brewers will fall off significantly without Pujols and Fielder and things get even better looking. Who would be hitting against RHP in that 3B platoon that you're saying shouldn't be hard to stay above avg with? Not being argumentative... genuinely asking. Ryan Flaherty.

If the O-Line and WRs continue playing this way, this may be the best opportunity yet to get rid of Angelo.

This frustrated me more than anything in that game. More than the O-Line that got beat repeatedly by the same scheme. More than the receivers dropping passes. More than the terrible challenge. WHAT THE [expletive] WAS THE GOAL THERE? You're down two scores with under a minute to play and you're throwing passes to the middle of the field and then refusing to spike the ball on top of it? I'm a Lovie supporter, but that was [expletive]-for-brains coaching right there.

CHALLENGE THAT!

I'm nit gonna typically defend him, but he was trying to get over the low block and out a hit on at the same time. I don't think it was as bad as it looked.

I've had high hopes for this guy if he can ever manage to get healthy. A broken hand shouldn't hold a DE out though, so whenever he gets 100% from his leg injury I guess we'll see if he's able to provide a spark to the pass rush.

Given the way AFL teams have been hitting so far, I'm thrilled McNutt got three scoreless innings in. Strikeouts would have been nice, but I can live with a scoreless/hitless outing with a lot of ground balls.

Inexcusable that the kicker forced him out. If 47 would have kept going and blocked him, it would have been a TD.

That is exactly why Tim Jennings should not be a starting corner back in a cover 2 defense. He actually was there for the play, but Newton just pushed him into the pylon with him.

They were playing with fire repeatedly throwing over the middle like that. It was only a matter of time that one of those high thrown balls got knocked back up in the air.

'The Luger' would be a great baseball nickname. He'll have to get his velocity into the 90s to be worthy of such a nickname though.

first of all, the missed PI on woodson when he fell into hester like an oaf was pretty impactful. because it wasn't called, the bears punted and gave the packers great field position, which they used to score a TD. the punt return was just another bad call by the refs. I know, I admitted that in an earlier post. That's why I'm surprised there wasn't more complaining about that one. Fact, is I'd be more upset about that one then the punt return. The punt return was just a cooler play and the last one. I'm really not trying to be an A-hole (ok, I probably was a-holeish on in a post or two). I've had discussions/arguements with fans of my team on other boards regarding stuff like this as well. There is a lot of time until next Sunday and I like posting about the game that took place. Fact is I enjoy posting on this site more than other ones. the problem is, a call like that probably sabotaged our season, and i've seen the packers get the benefit of every call and every break for about what, 10 weeks in a row? it's frustrating to watch things like this continue to happen for a team that i'm not fond of. the packers are the better team, i'm not saying the bears are better by any stretch, but their run of luck has been nothing short of astonishing. I really don't think winning 3 tough road games to get to the Super Bowl, then beating a very good Steelers team is "luck." I'm not saying the Packers have been extra lucky, but there's absolutely nothing in your statement that suggests the Packers weren't lucky.

This is where I'm at. I'm still convinced that the play threw him off and he figured it was illegal or something, just wasn't thinking when he threw the flag. Maybe he thought Hester called for a fair catch?

Are we looking at the same picture?

first of all, the missed PI on woodson when he fell into hester like an oaf was pretty impactful. because it wasn't called, the bears punted and gave the packers great field position, which they used to score a TD. the punt return was just another bad call by the refs. I know, I admitted that in an earlier post. That's why I'm surprised there wasn't more complaining about that one. Fact, is I'd be more upset about that one then the punt return. The punt return was just a cooler play and the last one. I'm really not trying to be an A-hole (ok, I probably was a-holeish on in a post or two). I've had discussions/arguements with fans of my team on other boards regarding stuff like this as well. There is a lot of time until next Sunday and I like posting about the game that took place. Fact is I enjoy posting on this site more than other ones. The three reasons the punt return is more of a target for criticism than the PI. 1. Punt return was at the end of the game and is more memorable in the aftermath of it all. 2. The punt return was a play that had a direct effect on points in the game. The PI looked like a home run for Hester, but who knows how the safety would have played it if Hester had gotten past Woodson. Also, most people aren't going to correlate the last GB TD to that PI play even though the latter had a lot to do with the former. 3. There was a reasonable argument to be made on the PI call that it was incidental contact. I still think it was the wrong call, but I could see a ref, in the heat of the moment, making a bad judgement call. The punt return... there was no hold or anything close to a hold. Period.

Right but your asking for a recovered onside kick with receivers who have showed bad hands for a lot of the game, the offensive line to hold up(which they did most of the game but still) and for Cutler to throw accurate passes most of the game. I mean the Bears longest drive in the 2nd half was 6 plays. I just don't see how the Bears would have tied or won that game given what was taken place in the game. Too me it's just people complaining that the Bears didn't win by 3 instead of 10. http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/onside-kicks.html That article suggests that in this particular scenario where the Packers knew the Bears would be attempting an onside kick on the subsequent kick off, they have about a 20% chance of getting the ball. With the new kick off rules and a successful onside kick, the Bears would be getting the ball at around their own 45 yard line. That means They would have to get the ball 25 yards down field in about 45-50 seconds to get Gould into a pretty comfortable kicking range. While it's more likely they fail than succeed in this situation, to compare it to winning the lottery is ridiculous. If they simply overcome the first hurdle of recovering the onside kick, the odds of success I would think are dramatically higher than 20%. Regardless, as a fan of football and specifically the Bears, all I wanted was to see them attempt it. A terrible call denied me and many other fans of this opportunity. It's not the most egregious thing to happen in the history of the NFL, but I feel it's unacceptable.

My guess is they probably set up for it quite a bit, but there's not too many punts that it will actually work out perfectly like that. I bet if you go back and look at tape over the last couple of weeks, the Bears did try it but the kicking team was, you know, paying attention. And not being held on the way down the field Like today.

My guess is they probably set up for it quite a bit, but there's not too many punts that it will actually work out perfectly like that. I bet if you go back and look at tape over the last couple of weeks, the Bears did try it but the kicking team was, you know, paying attention.

The flag wasn't thrown there though. It wasn't till the two players had completely separated that there was a flag thrown

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to (and I don't think it was a hold but it was the only contact Graham had with another player), the ref waited about 3 seconds after it had transpired before throwing the flag. I honestly thing the ref was confused and just blurted a call and a number out after he realized he shouldn't have thrown a flag.

just wait until the Lions get consistently screwed on calls when playing GB. then I'll point out how "stupid" your comments are. yeah, i always make a complete ass out of myself when that happens exhibit a viewtopic.php?f=44&t=58233&p=2501927#p2501927 That has nothing to do with getting screwed on a call. It was the correct rule interpretation. It sucks, but it had nothing to do with the call.

I was watching the play from the point of the punt. Again, there was only one Bear engaged with a Packer the whole time even when setting up the return, and it wasn't a hold.